In a recent decision, Massachusetts highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, gave the green light to Police tracking suspects with GPS if they have a warrant to do so.

The facts stem from a drug bust for over 120 ounces of crack cocaine. As with any possession-based offense (and especially something like crack cocaine), the easiest way to beat the charges is to have the evidence thrown out. That is generally done because police violated some policy or constitutional right of the suspect. Here, the Defendant is simply arguing that the use of a GPS to track his movements violates his Fifth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Well, the Court didn’t buy his argument. Most people immediately criticize decisions like this and lament the rise of the “police state.” I have to disagree, as I don’t think this decision adds any fuel to that fire. The key to the decision is that GPS tracking is permitted as long as the police have a warrant. Searches with warrants is older than the US, and certainly within the acceptable tools available to law enforcement. It really is no different than tapping a suspect’s phone lines after obtaining a valid warrant.

So what does this mean in practice? The Police can track a suspect with GPS provided they get a warrant. So don’t worry, you can still attack the use of a tracking GPS. The argument now will simply be that the warrant should not have been issued, rather than that the use of the GPS unit itself is a constitutional violation.